Posts Tagged ‘Rahm Emanuel’

Now, previously, I had the pure factual evidence that the vast majority of even barely legitimate cases of police officer “executions” had occurred in cities DOMINATED BY LIBERALS. Which is to say that in case after case of police “death squads” – as the left wants to frame them – it was LIBERAL police officers following LIBERAL guidelines in LIBERAL cities with LIBERAL police bureaucracies commanded by LIBERAL city officials who ran the whole “death squad” from start to finish.

Virtually every mass gun shooting has occurred in a Democrat GUN-FREE ZONE where the murderers know their victims will be sheep-like and utterly defenseless. And the same phenomenon is equally true of cities with the strictest gun laws where every gun-wielding criminal has that confidence that his victim almost certainly will not have a gun because Democrats took guns away from every law-abiding citizen leaving only those who don’t follow laws to have firearms.

So when Democrats are in power, law-abiding citizens can only cower in their homes and hope the police show up. But the police are just as scared because they now have the assurance that they will be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if they dare to do their jobs.

I want you to note that that article was PROPHETIC because it was written LAST YEAR, ONE YEAR AGO. And look at what’s happened to our streets as a result of these morally depraved Democrat policies that have declared war on law enforcement as liberals in crisis after crisis sided with their core special interest groups over the police. And we live in an age of coward Democrat to the degree that Democrats CAN NOT SAY that “All Lives Matter.” They HAVE to ONLY say “Black Lives Matter.”

But the problem is that if “all lives don’t matter,” “Black Lives” aren’t worth roach poop, either. So pop your popcorn and watch the killings explode BECAUSE of the Democrat Party and their leftist political thug organizations like Black Lives Matter.

A couple of snippets from that above article:

Some see the current mood of hardened positions and distrust as reminiscent of a dark era of crime 20-30 years ago in cities like New York, when police barricaded themselves in squad cars or stations out of concern for their own safety. The neighborhoods, meanwhile, crumbled.

Without a shift in the national dialogue, the NYPD, as well as other departments across the U.S., may back away from the current approach of policing with a focus on keeping communities safe and free of even petty infractions, which many believe serves as the key to ending widespread crime.

The subsequent backlash, particularly those from within minority communities who feel police departments don’t represent their interests, has forced some officers within the NYPD to reconsider whether such risks are worth it.“Without the support of the community, the average police officer is not going to go out of his way,” says Pete Segreti, a former NYPD officer who retired last year after 28 years, serving in a variety of assignments from beat patrols up to the Joint Terrorism Task Force. “He’s going to have a hands-off style of policing. He’s not going to go and be a proactive officer, which is what these communities need.”

The tense of fear created by the recent Brooklyn shooting is compounded by concerns that proactive attitudes could lead to a grand jury and subsequent accusations. There’s also a belief among some in the police community that politicians no longer stand with them in unison, an issue that flared recently with charges from police unions and leaders such as former Commissioner Ray Kelly that New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio actively campaigned for election on a so-called anti-police platform.“The backlash is going to be where officers are just going to drive around in the car, and when the radio tells you to go somewhere, that’s where they’re going to go,” Segreti says, offering an old cop joke: “‘Blue Flower Pots.’ They stand on a corner, they were out there, basically, and they just stood there. They’d take a report, and that was it.”

The US News & World Report article ends with this sober indictment of the Democrat Party demagogue machine and the Obama administration:

“They use force. That is the core function of the police. That’s why police get called, is to deal with something that isn’t supposed to be happening, and police can take care of the situation because they can tell someone what to do, or use force on them,” he says. “That is inherently controversial and problematic.”

“Given the nature of police [officers’] occupation, it’s just very difficult to do on a sustained basis.”

This harsh truth has been exacerbated by the mandate passed down from the federal government to city police forces to help protect America against further terrorist attacks. Police funding has now been dedicated to militarizing the force, and prioritizing quick-response training, causing fear among communities – like Ferguson – who don’t feel they understand who police officers are truly targeting.

The Brown and Garner deaths, compounded by the shooting in Brooklyn, has created a “one-two punch” that will damage police officers’ faith in the merits of engaging the community, he says.

And it could create permanent damage.

“When you get a general sense in the community that nobody cares,” warns Gosselin, “watch out. Because that’s when the real serious crimes are about to occur.”

Because of Democrat Party demagoguery, police are the ones who are scared and the criminals are the ones who feel emboldened and safe.

All that said and all that being completely true, it turns out that there is another, more direct connection between liberal Democrats and the outrageous shooting of Laquan McDonald.

I just came across something that amounts to direct evidence of the left being to blame in this egregious case of Laquan McDonald. I came across an article from the Los Angeles Times that I shall reprint in its entirety to showcase one question that I want you to ask yourself as you look it over: why didn’t the Chicago police officers have Tasers?

“Can someone get us a Taser? We’re at 40th and Keeler. This guy, ah, kind of walking away, he has a knife in his hand.”

Four minutes later, 17-year-old Laquan McDonald lay dying two blocks away, shot 16 times by an officer as the teenager held a knife and walked down the middle of the road.

Until this week, the public had seen only a silent video of Officer Jason Van Dyke shooting McDonald. On Wednesday, the city provided some of the sounds from that night, releasing redacted radio traffic between a dispatcher and officers at the scene.

Two officers had been trailing McDonald for nearly half a mile, from a trucking yard where he was allegedly breaking into vehicles and then through a Burger King parking lot. Officers called for a Taser as McDonald headed east on Pulaski Road.

“Anybody have a Taser?” the dispatcher called out. “Looking for a Taser; armed offender.”

A minute and a half passes as the officers follow McDonald. “Walking towards Pulaski from Keeler, eastbound on 40th Street. Again, armed with knife,” an officer says.

A minute later, the dispatcher repeats the call for a Taser. “Anybody close yet?” she asks. “Asking for a Taser for armed offender with a knife.”

Within seconds, an officer radios: “Popped our tire on our car, squad.” Police have said McDonald used his knife to slash the front tire of a squad car trying to block his path.

What follows is about a minute of other squad cars radioing that they are on their way to the scene. “Let me know when he’s in custody, guys,” the dispatcher says.

Eight seconds later, an officer yells out over his radio, “Shots fired by the police! It’s shots fired by the police, squad. Get the ambulance over here.”

The teen was alive when paramedics arrived but died on the way to the hospital, authorities have said.

According to the video, Van Dyke and his partner arrived 10 minutes after the first call. Their weapons were drawn as they stepped from their Chevrolet Tahoe. Within six seconds of exiting the police car, Van Dyke opened fire. Fifteen seconds later, he had emptied his 16-round handgun, authorities said. His partner asked him to hold his fire as Van Dyke reloaded, authorities said.

Van Dyke was charged with first-degree murder last month hours before the city finally released the video.

The city also released a copy of a 911 call earlier that night reporting that McDonald was stealing radios from trucks in a parking lot.

“Hi, I need a cop over here on 41st and Kildare,” the caller says. “I have a parking lot full of trucks, and I have a guy right here who stole the radios.”

“Are you holding this person?” a dispatcher asks.

“Yeah, he’s here,” the caller says.

After asking for directions, the dispatcher says, “OK, we’ll send the police. We will send the police.”

McDonald fled the parking lot, and responding officers saw him walking with a knife, according to police.

In releasing the audio files, the city’s Office of Emergency Management and Communications said it had redacted “private” portions of the radio traffic. That could include names, telephone numbers, home addresses and license plate numbers, the agency explained.

Crepeau and Wong are reporters for the Chicago Tribune.

In the famous words of Porky Pig, “That’s all, folks.” That’s the whole article.

I just want you to understand how I read: I see a title that says police were seeking a Taser. I read the story about the police dispatch looking all over the city for a damn Taser. I read the criminal suspect is gunned down while they are still frantically looking for a Taser. But the reporters who wrote the article inexplicably never bother to mention just why it is that the Chicago Police Department did not have Tasers for their officers who would otherwise be forced to use deadly force.

Outcry over whether police are using Taser stun-guns appropriately — or whether they ought to use them at all — continues to fuel calls for greater police transparency and accountability.

Local activists are calling on the police to make changes to internal rules that govern how and when Tasers may be used. They also question the recent Allegheny County medical examiner’s report that found no involvement of Tasers in the death of Andre Thomas. The Swissvale resident was hit with the Taser’s immobilizing electrical current three times during an encounter with borough police on Aug. 5. On Sept. 24, his cause of death was determined to relate only to cocaine intoxication. […]

The leftist perspective money-quote is near the end of the story:

“The most serious problem with Tasers,” Meieran concludes, “is that they are being used for pain compliance, which is nothing but a euphemism for torture.”

“The Chicago Police Department is dramatically expanding its use of Tasers, adding several hundred more and putting them in the hands of patrol officers for the first time, officials said Wednesday.

“The ‘stun guns’ will go in every squad car to give front-line beat officers a more effective way to protect themselves and calm a disturbance.

“But the electrical devices have caused controversy nationwide, with debates about their safety and lawsuits filed on behalf of dozens of people, some in the Chicago area, who have died after being ‘Tased.’

“Chicago police laid out their plans just hours after a 31-year-old south suburban man was pronounced dead after Midlothian police used a Taser to subdue him. Jaesun Ingles, of Riverdale, who was on parole, was stunned with the Taser after he tried to swallow a plastic bag that police believed contained drugs, resisted arrest and ran from officers, Midlothian police said. An autopsy by the Cook County medical examiner’s office Wednesday was inconclusive, pending further investigation.”

So just what the hell happened to all of those Tasers??? Why didn’t the police have any when they clearly needed them to avoid the very shooting that happened that the left is so batpoop about???

So I’m simply going to go ahead and call out what appears to be the rather obvious truth: the Chicago Police Department officer shot that suspect – who was CLEARLY a criminal and had already USED his knife in a violent way against police cruisers – because the left had previously removed their ability to respond with non-lethal force.

And I have a feeling that the officer who finally emptied his magazine into Laquan McDonald was watching this thug-punk walking freely down the street with cops POWERLESS to respond to him due to the “mystery of lawlessness” being unleashed by Democrats and something snapped and he said, “F#%@ this, I’ve had enough.”

And now we’re seeing the consequences.

Or let me put it another way from the left: “We’re going to take away you evil cops ability to use anything other than lethal force against hard-core criminals; THEN we’re going to demonize you for using the lethal force we left you with no choice but to use.

I would love to be allowed to perform the following experiment with a liberal. For the record, I am a big, tall, powerful weightlifter (like many “superfelon” perps from prison weight training as we’ve long known). Here’s the experiment: I get to come at you with a knife and the complete freedom to use it to KILL you. You have your liberal PC words and your gun. You frankly shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun, really, given your attitude toward guns, but you get one armed with blanks. And ALL you have to do for me to stop my act of stabbing and slashing you to death is to draw that weapon, aim it at me, and start pulling the trigger. Because otherwise the exercise is for keeps and I’m going to do a “snow-angel” in your blood and entrails right next to your hacked-to-death corpse.

Mind you, you COULD have possibly had an alternative to using that gun on me, BUT YOUR FELLOW DAMN LIBERALS TOOK IT AWAY FROM YOU.

Now, I’m going to bet that the vast majority of you liberals, as stupid and as foolish as you are, would draw that weapon and point it at me and start pulling the trigger to save your lives.

Too bad you vile roaches won’t let police do the same thing.

I have to mock the left again as a liberal online outfit runs an article titled, “This Is How UK Police Stop Someone With A Knife.” The United Kingdom’s secret is to use TASERS. You know, the kind that the very same anti-gun left won’t let OUR police use. While they scream at them for every single shooting.

And so the American political left literally is cynically and wickedly creating more police shootings so they can demagogue them, just as Obama is allowing terrorist attacks in the United States so he can demagogue guns and the good American people who own them.

There are more than 900,000 sworn police officers in the U.S. They do an incredibly dangerous job and are forced to enter tense and frantic situations where people – who may or may not be armed with deadly weapons – are acting at their very worst. They are forced to make snap decisions which could end with one of them dead or an innocent dead as well as a criminal dead. With that many police officers in the MILLIONS of situations they face, there will ALWAYS be some situation where the left can demonize a police officer somewhere for possibly doing something wrong in that split second that he has to react in the very worst situations any imperfect human being can face.

And like roaches, Democrat activists are swarming all over every single one of them.

And like a terrorist attack where the terrorists only have to succeed once to make a giant impact, it only takes ONE situation with ONE cop for Democrat activists to demonize and delegitimize the ENTIRETY of law enforcement.

On its face, it is seemingly bizarre that Democrats would attack the police who represent government law and order. But here’s the thing: the police don’t represent “government” at a high enough level for Democrats. Democrats hate our Constitution, hate the states that are the basis for our constitutional representative republic, and therefore hate the fact that states, counties and cities have any right whatsoever to be allowed to do ANYTHING they don’t like. What they want is an Obama police force that an Obama can exploit to his political ideology; they want a “People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs” like the Soviet Union had. And they won’t stop for anything less.

What we are watching here is nothing short of last-days “mystery of lawlessness” overtaking the United States of America and being used as a political war tactic against the American people. We now have a Democrat Party that has officially turned against police and sided with the most lawless members of society in order to gin up the hate and fear of their political base so they will vote. We now have a President who is openly exploiting every terrorist attack in the United States – which are all actually examples of his failure to keep us safe and protect us – as a political weapon against the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and the American people who rely on our Constitution to be safe from crime and from the tyrants who right now inhabit our government.

We’ve got the smoking gun now. Democrats are pure, unadulterated evil. They are so evil, in fact, that they have created a death squad within the Chicago Police Department that is systematically and intentionally murdering black children. And our source for that is none other than a Democrat whistle blower:

CHICAGO – State Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) told a Detroit radio station that police in Chicago might be killing black kids. Her explanation for the 996 people who have been short (228 homocides) in Chicago since January.

“I’m going to tell you what some suspicions have been, and people have whispered to me: they’re not sure that black people are shooting all of these children,” Davis said.

“There’s some suspicion – and I don’t want to spread this, but I’m just going to tell you what I’ve been hearing – they suspect maybe the police are killing some of these kids.”

When WBBM asked Davis if she thinks it’s possible that police are killing children, she said, “I don’t know. I don’t know that they are, and I don’t know that they aren’t, since no one’s been arrested. We don’t know who’s doing it.”

For the record, Chicago is and has been a bastion of the Democrat Party for decades. For the record, the mayor who has apparently called for this racist death squad is none other than Barack Obama’s former chief of staff, Rham Emanuel.

At least the truth is out now. At last black people can know for a fact that liberalism is the most racist ideology since anything that spewed out of the mouth of Hilter. And at last we can finally begin holding the Democrat Party that formed the Klu Klux Klan responsible for its holocaust of black people.

This is what Democrats are reduced to. It’s either the above, or Democrats and the blacks who live and work on the DNC plantation must explain why 90% of black people are murdered by other black people in the age where the “civil rights community” has made their entire case about that evil “white Hispanic” a.k.a. George Zimmerman. And by the way, if you add the abortion statistics (black “mothers” murder nearly 2/3rds of their babies) to the murder rate, blacks murder about 99.999999 percent of their children. But let’s blame whitey for that tiny fraction of one percent (even if we have to invent the previously nearly entirely unknown category of “white Hispanic” in order to do it. Let’s blame Bush.

Liberalism is never having to take responsibility for the horror that liberal policies have created.

We add Chicago (the worst murder rate on the damn planet) to Detroit (the worst economic hellhole on the damn planet) to the Democrat Party tally. These are both cities that have been entirely owned by Democrats and Democrat policies for at least sixty years – and to quote a certain racist “reverend” whose church Obama attended for more than twenty years, “The chickens have come home to roost.”

No group of people has EVER been more OWNED by a political party than black people have allowed themselves to be owned by the Democrat Party. Whether you consider abortion, or out-of-control sexuality that demeans women, or the destruction of families, or permissive attitudes toward crime, or drugs, or failed liberal education policies, or imposing police procedures that prevent law enforcement from doing its job, or welfare, or the complete abandonment of ANY personal responsibility, or permanent dependency on any of the hundreds of government programs that entices and encourages a life of failure and a life of abject government dependency, we can readily see that no group of people have EVER drank the Democrat Party Kool-Aid more deeply than black people have drank it. And what do they want? More of the hair of the dog that rabidly bit them and continues to bite them and WILL CONTINUE to bite them forever, that’s what. And that’s why the black community is in ruins today.

Liberalism is like Marxism in virtually every significant way. But most of all, it is an ideology that promises the world, but only succeeds in delivering hell by way of the crushing of the human spirit.

If you use my search engine to explore my use of the word “fascist,” you’ll see I “liberally” apply it to liberalism. And to Obama and his liberal thugs. What the Obama administration did with DOMA – passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Clinton – and what he has since done with illegal immigration in an incredibly illegal and cynical attempt to win the Hispanic vote are just a couple of your more obvious examples.

The thing is, I’m completely right to do so, and liberals keep proving that I’m completely right.

Chick-fil-A is the latest (well, there are a thousand examples every day, so let’s just say it’s the latest mass media example) example of liberal fascism.

Let me first just ask this question: when was the last time a religious conservative mayor went after a business for its anti-BIBLICAL views???

The anti-gay views openly espoused by the president of a fast food chain specializing in chicken sandwiches have run afoul of Mayor Rahm Emanuel and a local alderman, who are determined to block Chick-fil-A from expanding in Chicago.

“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,” Emanuel said Wednesday.

“What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.”

Ald. Joe Moreno (1st) is using the same argument to block Chick-fil-A from opening its first free-standing restaurant in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood.

“Same sex marriage, same-sex couples — that’s the civil rights fight of our time. To have those discriminatory policies from the top down is just not something that we’re open to. …We want responsible businesses,” Moreno said.

“If he’s in the business of selling chicken in Chicago, he should be in the business of having equal rights for everyone. Period …. If it looks like a chicken, talks like a chicken, walks like a chicken, it’s a chicken. If you’re saying you don’t respect the values and rights of same-sex couples, that trickles down through the organization. … That’s paramount to the way the company behaves.”

Don Perry, vice president of corporate public relations for Chick-fil-A, and senior manager Jerry Johnston could not be reached for comment on the opposition from the mayor and Moreno.

Chick-fil-A has already obtained zoning approval to build a restaurant in the 2500 block of North Elston. But, the company still needs City Council approval to divide the land and purchase a lot near Home Depot.

Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy was quoted last week as saying he was “guilty as charged” for supporting, what he called the “biblical definition” of marriage as between a man and a woman.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that,” Cathy was quoted as saying.

Appearing on the Ken Coleman Show, Cathy was further quoted as saying, “I think we’re inviting God’s judgment when we shake our fist at him, you know, [saying], ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ And I pray on God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try and redefine what marriage is all about.”

Cathy’s comments have infuriated gay rights activists across the nation, prompting their political allies to take a stand against the company.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has said Chick-fil-A “doesn’t belong in Boston” because of Cathy’s discriminatory stance.

On Wednesday, the tag team of Emanuel and Moreno joined the chorus, citing Cathy’s anti-gay views. The only question is whether they have a legal leg to stand on.

“Absolutely not,” said former Ald. William Banks (36th), the longtime chairman of the City Council’s Zoning Committee who presided over a massive re-write of the city’s 1957 zoning ordinance.

“Any alderman can hold a development issue for virtually any purpose. But if he’s doing it for the wrong reasons — if he’s citing a gay rights issue — there’s nothing illegal about that.”

Moreno said he has an ace in his back pocket if he runs into legal trouble: traffic and congestion issues caused by the store that have been the subject of behind-the-scenes negotiations for the last nine months.

San Francisco Mayor Ewdin Lee also joined the chorus opposing Chick-fil-A with a tweet saying: ‘Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.’

What was Chick-fil-A’s crime that they should be punished and deprived of their rights? The CEO stated that he believed that marriage was the union between one man and one woman and Chick-fil-A was “caught” having exercised its 1st Amendment right to donate to a pro-family cause that supported that view of marriage.

Fascists hate Chick-fil-A for that.

Liberals have repeatedly claimed that Republicans are hoping the economy is bad so that they can win in November. But it is LIBERALS who want job destruction and who do not want economic growth. Can Chick-fil-A create jobs in Boston or Chicago? Uh-uh, they can’t. Can Chick-fil-A grow and help the economy grow? Not if Democrats have anything to do with it, they can’t.

Anti-biblical views. I brought that up. What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

Genesis 19:4-5,12-13: Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” … Then the two men said to Lot, “Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the LORD that the LORD has sent us to destroy it.”

Leviticus 18:22: ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Romans 1:18, 22, 25-27:For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. … Professing to be wise, they became fools … Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Is it okay if Bible-believing politicians and government officials freely persecute anybody who holds an “anti-biblical view”??? I hope every liberal out there is saying, “You’re damn right it’s okay!” Because otherwise you people are hypocrites.

If any lefty wants to say that’s happened, let’s see it: let’s see the conservative mayor who has said, “Those who hold anti-biblical views discriminate against Christians. Such people don’t represent what our city stands for and we’re going to punish them with the power of government.”

Just imagine the damn outcry if a conservative mayor punished gay people the way Boston and Chicago attacked a Christian business. You want to bet that Barack Obama and his attacking lawdog Eric Holder wouldn’t be all over that major like the stink on poop that they already are?

Quite a few people have praised Chick-fil-A for its business model. Allow me to criticize it: they ought to shake the filthy dust of Boston and Chicago from their feet and create jobs and build the economy in places that deserve to have jobs and economic growth.

We don’t have a Chick-fil-A in my own area (although locating in the Palm Springs area would be out of the frying pan and into the fire, wouldn’t it?), but if we did I’d be a Chick-fil-A-eating fool to thank them for being one of the few businesses that actually stands for something other than PC or profit. I used to eat at one in Anaheim and it’s gooooood.

And as yet another example of liberal fascism, the same damn fascist liberals who are trying to ban Chick-fil-A are doing everything they can to grant more permits for more Islamofascist mosques. Liberals self-righteously say, “We don’t support or endorse their beliefs or practices but we have a constitutional obligation to support their freedoms. But Chick-Fil-A fascism proves once for all that it isn’t any “moral principle” of freedom that liberals are standing on. Because the left would have called for Rahm Emanuel, Thomas Menino, and all the Democrats and liberals who joined their call for punitive action against Chick-Fil-A to RESIGN if that were the case. No, rather, vicious terrorists fanatical Muslims are (for obvious reasons to anyone who understands that the left is fascist) the ONLY religious group that liberals stand behind.

If you’re a liberal, you’re a fascist. And the more liberal you are, the more freaking fascist you are. The fact that Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel are still in office after defecating all over the 1st Amendment is proof of that pudding.

ABC’s The View honored Roseanne Barr with a guest-host spot on July 19, which shows they probably aren’t in the habit of evaluating her sanity based on her Twitter rants. Take her wishing cancer on Chick-Fil-A fans this morning: “anyone who eats S–t Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ”.

This came after she told the restaurant chain to suck an appendage she doesn’t have.

This outbreak of hate was retweeted by comedian Joe Rogan, who recently hosted a newfangled version of “Fear Factor” on NBC. Shortly after her get-cancer tweet, she doubled down:

“off to grab a s–it fil-A sandwich on my way to worshipping Christ, supporting Aipac and war in Iran.”

Meanwhile, fascist liberals are seeking to forcibly close Chick-Fil-A restraurants at at least two state university campuses:

Liberals hate free speech, hate the Constitution, hate human life. They also hate businesses and jobs and even taxes – given that the one Chicago Chick-Fil-A created 97 jobs and pays taxes. Now liberals clearly don’t believe in God; but whatever replaces God for them – I suppose it’s ‘Government forbid!’ – that we let in a business that will pay taxes and create jobs. Again, what they REALLY want is to be able to control everything and reward their friends and punish their enemies and decide who wins and who loses. That’s the quintessential nature of fascism.

The chaos of Cairo has come to America. Brought by liberals, of course. The motto of fascism is, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” Compare and contrast:

“The utility of terror was multifaceted, but among its chief benefits was its tendency to maintain a permanent sense of crisis. Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation. Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency.” — Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, pp. 42-43. Copyright 2007.

I know what you’re thinking, liberal: “That bastard Jonah Goldberg got his hands on a time machine so he could summarize the Obama administration philosophy and label it as “fascist” before they said it back in 2007.”

There’s always a crisis with fascists. And fascists are always saying “Carpe diem.” And there’s also always a scapegoat. Big Brother had Emmanuel Goldstein. Adolf Hitler had the Jews. Barack Obama has George W. Bush. Heck, Soviet big government totalitarians even managed to blame seventy years of bad weather after their policies resulted in perpetual famine, having executed all the other viable scapegoats.

And now the tens of thousands of mostly bussed in unions have their new crisis and their new scapegoat in newly elected Republican Governor Scott Walker: Via Yahoo News:

So much for toning down the hate-filled, partisan-inspired, Nazi-comparing that has been going on in the United States for the past decade. County, state, and anti-budget protests have erupted into 25,000-strong rallies in Wisconsin against the governor’s plans to eliminate collective bargaining while increasing pension fund and health care payments. This week a heated debate over the Wisconsin state budget is raging non-stop, complete with signs sporting the Nazi swastika and bearing slogans comparing Wisconsin governor Scott Walker to Adolf Hitler have made appearances, according to CNN.

I’ve pointed out before in comments that I don’t care if liberals depict conservatives as Nazis and Hitler. What I despise about them is how they attack conservatives as vile for doing things that they for the most part didn’t do (and see here and here and here and here and here) and then relish in doing again and again the very thing they demonized as being evil. Liberals spent eight savage Bush derangement syndrome years comparing Bush to Hitler (example and example). And then managed the chutzpah to react in hysterical outrage when a few conservatives did the same thing to Obama that they had done a billion times more to Bush.

And, just for the record, that control of the mainstream media to use propaganda to define the conservatives who DON’T want the “hope and change” that radical socialists have always offered is yet another defining element of fascism.

Well, there really IS a crisis, of course, but it’s not what lying liberal fascists say it is. And if they want to see who the real Hitlers and the real Nazis are, they have only to stop screaming and put down their signs long enough to look in a mirror.

It also isn’t the tax cuts for businesses that liberals are blaming for the tax shortfall. Unless, of course, businesses large and small alike should have all their assets seized so the money can go into the pockets of big unions and then pour into the Democrat Party machine.

First of all, the idea that a former president like Bill Clinton would be the go-between between the White House and Joe Sestak, bearing an offer that amounted to the equivalent of an unpaid Pez dispenser of a position, doesn’t pass the smell test.

I mean, who on earth seriously thinks a former admiral and current Congressman would take an unpaid intern-level position in exchange for running for the US Senate?

How many of the other members of Obama’s intelligence advisory board can you name off the top of your head without Googling it? ZERO, just like Obama’s nickname, that’s how many.

Sestak waited until the White House announced their “narrative” in this corruption before telling his own version so they could get their stories straight. Joe Sestak’s brother, who is also Joe Sestak’s campaign manager, gets a phone call to better hone the background details of the White House’s “narrative.” Bill Clinton visits the White House yesterday to receive the details of HIS role in the narrative.

And then the “narrative” gets released to the public on the Friday before the Memorial Day recess and weekend.

Nothing slimy there, folks.

Bottom line: Joe Sestak knows if he’s the guy who brings down the Obama administration, that’s it for his liberal Democrat career; he also knows that he needs Obama and the DNC to help back, fund, and support his campaign if he’s going to have any chance of winning going forward. So he’s basically been saying, “I’m not going to say another word about the White House’s role until they tell me what they want me to say they said.”

Every single player in this disgrace of our national political system has an incentive to lie.

Charles Krauthammer pointed this out today: The documents released by the White House indicate a two month effort to persuade Sestak to drop out of the Senate primary against Arlen Specter. Unless the phone call between Clinton and Sestak lasted something like 86,400 minutes, there were other contacts and other offers. Let’s hear about all those, too.

Like I’ve already stated, I have a very hard time believing that the “job” Joe Sestak says the White House offered him in exchange for withdrawing from the Senate race was nothing but a trivial unpaid advisory position. Nevertheless, even if that’s what it was, it nevertheless WAS a “position.”

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,
position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,
provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of
Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such
benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any
political activity or for the support of or opposition to any
candidate or any political party in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

How was that code not violated??? “Any position.” That would encompass even the unpaid position on the president’s intelligence advisory board. Joe Sestak had repeatedly said that he was offered a “job” (which generally involves compensation) in exchange for dropping out of the Senate race so Obama’s guy could win. That’s a quid pro quo exchange, and it is a clear violation of the law.

Is this going away?

When told about Clinton’s involvement, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who has been leading the charge for more details on the allegation, said, “This is punishable by prison. This is a felony.”

I guess not.

Another question, given the fact that Obama supporters are citing cases involving Bill Clinton and alleging (without any evidence) that Bush did this crap too: Barack Obama promised he’d be a “new politician” who would change the nature of Washington. How has he not just flat-out lied about that in the most cynical way?

One way or another, the law was broken, any claim to the integrity of the Democrat political machine has been demolished, and the Obama White House has been verified to be more Nixonian than “ethical.”

As a final matter, it needs to be pointed out that this corrupt White House now has a PATTERN OF CORRUPTION:

Allegations that the White House offered Joe Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race echo an earlier report of a job offer to candidate Andrew Romanoff in Colorado.

On Sept. 27, 2009, the Denver Post reported that the Obama administration offered Senate candidate Romanoff a position if he canceled plans to run for the Democratic nomination against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet.

The paper said the job offer, which specified particular jobs, reportedly was delivered by Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff. One position the Post cited was a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency.

And, oh, yeah, that one DEFINITELY violates US Code 600 and a bunch of other laws. Not that the offer to Joe Sestak didn’t, too.

Who would have ever thought we’d see Chicago-style politics from Barack Obama?

Kirsten Powers is a reliable liberal and a feminist. But she had no time for the National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) when they began demonizing Sarah Palin. She said:

Kirsten Powers: “It’s not the National Organization for Women, right? But it’s not. It’s really the National Organization for Liberal Women. It’s not the National Organization for Women, because she’s a woman. And they put out a statement saying, “Not all women speak for women. Sarah Palin doesn’t speak for women.” Well, look; this woman, when I look at her – even if I don’t support her, you know, a lot of her policies, she is the embodiment of what feminism was all about. She’s a mother, she’s successful, her husband helps with the children. You know, we should be exited about this, even if you don’t support her.”

And Kirsten Powers hit it on the head. NOW isn’t pro-woman; if anything it is profoundly ANTI-woman (if you are a woman who cares about being a good wife and a good mother, they despise you). Rather, NOW is pro-liberal. It is also pro-hypocrite: they will NOT go after liberals who do things that they would scream about if a conservative had done them.

-Rahm Emanuel’s (President Obama’s Chief of Staff) comment to a male White House staffer, according to a soon-to-be released book, The Promise by Newsweek magazine columnist Jonathan Alter.

So we can readily understand the chief of staff of the Obama administration’s position. Women are inferiors. They are neither intellectually or emotionally qualified to do anything but bend over barefoot so they can get pregnant. And if anyone acts in any way like a worthless woman, he or she is not worth squat.

Women deserved to be demeaned and marginalized. As does everyone who in any way suggests any scintilla of “tampon-ness.”

Heck. This might be useful for understanding why so many women are liberals and Democrats. They’re just not “up” to being anything better, poor useless little tampon-wearing dears. You can’t expect anything more out of them.

Just imagine the hell-hath-no-fury if Karl Rove had said something like that. They would be calling for his resignation in droves, and every “journalist” would make certain that everyone heard about it, and that everyone knew it was a loathsome thing for Rove to say.

Liberals live in a world of abject hypocrisy. It is their defining essence.

Fortunately for Democrats, it is also the defining essence of the mainstream media.

There are metaphors, and then there are metaphors. This is definitely a defining statement of the Obama presidency:

“I’m going to kill that fucking dog.”

-Another gem from Emanuel who was pissed that Obama’s dog, Bo, was dropping turds in the White House, taking up presidential time in cleanups.

Does this tell us that Barry Hussein’s chief of staff is a loathsome, vile turd who should have been the very first piece of crap picked up off the carpet and flushed down the toilet? Of course he is. But there’s more to say about this sad saga.

Forget about Iran going nuclear; forget about our shockingly high unemployment; forget about dealing with the fact that the entire Gulf of Mexico is starting to look like the White House carpet after Bo crapped all over it: Barack Obama can’t even successfully preside over the house-training of his own dog.

And, yes. What Bo is doing to the White House carpeting, his master is doing to the country.

Maybe I should be the president. I had my Rottweiler puppy housebroken in under a week, and I have no doubt that he had more backtalk and sass attitude in him than Ahmadinejad (another loathsome little turd, by the way) can ever hope to have.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel met with Wall Street investors Sunday, the night before his boss, President Obama, criticized such meetings with Wall Street investors.

In Los Angeles trying to help Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) boost her sagging senatorial campaign that is in serious trouble, Obama Monday called such Wall Street meetings “shocking.”

“The Senate Republican leader, he paid a visit to Wall Street a week or two ago,” Obama said. “He took along the chairman of their campaign committee. He met with some of the movers and shakers up there. I don’t know exactly what was discussed. All I can tell you is when he came back, he promptly announced he would oppose the financial regulatory reform. He would oppose it. Shocking.”

Just one day before, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was meeting with Wall Street “movers and shakers” working out the finer details of the Democrats’ Wall Street reform that sets up a permanent taxpayer-funded bailout structure for “too big to fail” companies.

How is that NOT hypocrisy? “How DARE you do the same thing my guy just did! How DAREYOU!!!”

So what is really “shocking” is just what a loathsome, lying, hypocrite demagogue our president is.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had absolutely every right and reason to meet with the Wall Street figures, given the fact that he had been blasting the $50 billion in “too big to fail” bailout money that the Democrat legislation had stuffed in it. That was so heinous that even Obama was trying to strip out the uber-obvious unpopular bailout cash for Wall Street big boys. Obama said he would onlyonly sign a bill if it passed the test of putting an end to bailouts; this bill contains a gigantic bailout slush fund – and promises many more bailouts to come. And there is other bad news in that power-grab Obama calls a bill.

Hey, Barry Hussein, how about if we ask one of your Democrats how he feels about that fifty billion bucks that McConnell had been outraged about. Ask your fellow Democrat how HE feels about your turd of a bill:

(As Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), a Democrat member of the House Financial Services Committee, told the Politico yesterday that even if the $50 billion bailout slush fund currently in the bill were stripped out, “The Dodd bill has unlimited executive bailout authority. … The bill contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority.”)

“As President Obama prepares to deliver a speech in New York later this week that will attempt to align his administration squarely on the side of American taxpayers furious with Wall Street, his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, met privately on Sunday night with some of the city’s top investors,” The Washington Post’s Jason Horowitz and Michael Shear report. “At a private cocktail reception at the Park Avenue home of investors Jane Hartley and Ralph Schlosstein, Emanuel joked about how each of the 60 guests should take a work of art home before speaking seriously about the administration’s commitment to regulation reform.”

“It is important for the country and taxpayer that we get this right, that we put them before politics. That’s why I was disappointed to read that Senate Democrats are refusing to drop the $50 billion bailout fund — a fund that the Treasury Secretary himself opposes— unless Republicans pay a price for taking it out. This is exactly what Americans don’t like about Washington: when one side tries to ‘get’ something for doing what they should have done in the first place. If everyone agrees it should be dropped, then it should be dropped. And if Senate Democrats think it should stay, then they should explain why they think the Treasury Secretary was wrong when he said that this bailout fund ‘would create expectations that the government would step in to protect shareholders and creditors from losses.’

“Both sides have expressed a willingness to make the changes needed to ensure without any doubt that this bill won’t put taxpayers on the hook for future bailouts of Wall Street banks. Let’s just do that.”

Apparently Mitch McConnell is suffering from something slightly worse than Stockholm Syndrome, given the fact that he seems to think the depraved demagogues across the aisle actually have a “willingness” to make “changes needed.” That just isn’t the way Democrats roll, Mitch: rather, they try to shove through one hard-core partisan bill after another, and then demonize and demagogue anybody who points out what’s wrong with the crap they’re pushing.

You should really KNOW that, Mitch. After all, Barry Hussein just literally got through doing that very thing to you.

The often-way-too-infuriatingly moderate Susan Collins explained what was wrong with the Democrats’ thrust-into-our-face financial overhaul bill this way:

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, R-ME.: I don’t think you do it by creating a moral hazard, by putting a big fat fund out there in the first place that tells financial institutions don’t worry, you can engage in risky practices, high-risk products, there is going to be a fund, there it is, $50 billion all ready to bail you out.

The bailout as proposed in the bill would allow the executive branch on its own, without appropriation from Congress, any approval from Congress, to seize, essentially seize a firm it designates again unilaterally as systematically risky, take it over, have the treasury back all of the bad loans, and then have the Fed print the money to pay them off.

Now, when we did the Chrysler bailout, or the bailout of TARP, which we had in 2008, we had to get the Congress along. This is an interesting and I think a disturbing trend where so much arbitrary power is not only in Washington, but not only in the executive, there is no checks, no balance.

That means you get a few powerful people in Washington, secretary of the treasury, head of the FDIC. You walk into a large institution and say we might designate you systematically risky. We want you to do “x,” “y” and “z.” I can assure you they will do “x,” “y” and “z.”

And that’s what happens in Putin’s Russia when he takes over oil. That’s not the way it should be. Congress ought to stay engaged, and that it’s willingly giving up its prerogative is remarkable.

As usual, Democrats are counting upon outright lies and demagoguery to sell a truly terrible bill. They present the facade that they are against Wall Street – even though Wall Street has been lining Democrats’ pockets with millions and millions in contributions, and even though Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel came out of Goldman Sachs – and that Republicans are somehow opposing everything that is good and right by standing against Obama’s next Washington power-grab.

The new bank bill would institutionalize more bailouts. No longer would congressmen vote on bailouts, they would be run by bureaucrats and flow automatically from the pockets of taxpayers to the pockets of banks that contribute enough to the Chicago political machine to make the list.

Do you actually want that? You are literally enabling Obama and Democrats to receive millions and millions of dollars in campaign contributions to help them win reelection even as they give huge Wall Street firms billions and billions in future rewards courtesy of taxpayers.

Please don’t believe the constant stream of lies that spew out of the mouth of your hypocrite-in-chief.

We’re seeing growing sings that all is most certainly not well in the Camelot Part Deux that liberals wanted to recreate in the Obama White House. Obama himself is cracking under the stress, smoking too much and drinking too much. I think we’d all like it if the man who had the responsibility of imposing his will on an Iran determined to develop nuclear ICBMs had at least enough willpower to impose his will on the next pack of cigarettes. Meanwhile, Obama’s Chicago-thug “fearsome foursome” who form his paranoid inner circle are taking all kinds of heat – and showing signs of meltdown from all the gear-clashing.

Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel – Mr. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste” himself – has been under fire from liberals who want to blame him for the near-total failure Obama’s first year has been. But Emanuel has some allies in the press as well, who have come out to make a strong defense (mayhap with Rahm’s help?) at the direct expense of Obama. I mean, the mainstream media is blaming the failure of the Obama administration on Emanuel’s lack of discipline and management skills, while other parts of the mainstream media argue that Rahm Emanuel is the only thing preventing Obama from ending up worse than Jimmy Carter. I mean, you know there are a lot of hurt feelings and dead bodies in closets at the White House with this stuff going on.

And now we see the glue is coming off the veneer of David Axelrod, too.

WASHINGTON — David Axelrod was sitting at his desk on a recent afternoon — tie crooked, eyes droopy and looking more burdened than usual. He had just been watching some genius on MSNBC insist that he and President Obama’s other top aides were failing miserably and should be replaced.

“Typical Washington junk we have to deal with,” Mr. Axelrod said in an interview. The president is deft at blocking out such noise, he added, suddenly brightening. “I love the guy,” he said, and in the space of five minutes, repeated the sentiment twice.

Critics, pointing to the administration’s stalled legislative agenda, falling poll numbers and muddled messaging, suggest that kind of devotion is part of the problem at the White House. Recent news reports have cast the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, as the administration’s chief pragmatist, and Mr. Axelrod, by implication, as something of a swooning loyalist. A “Moonie,” dismissed Mr. Axelrod’s close friend, former Commerce Secretary William Daley. Or as the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, joked, “the guy who walks in front of the president with rose petals.”

Still, it is a charge that infuriates Mr. Axelrod, the president’s closest aide, longest-serving adviser and political alter ego. “I guess I have been castigated for believing too deeply in the president,” he said, lapsing into the sarcasm he tends to deploy when playing defense.

No one has taken the perceived failings of the administration more personally or shown the strain as plainly as Mr. Axelrod, who as White House senior adviser oversees every aspect of how Mr. Obama is presented. As such, Mr. Axelrod, the president’s mustachioed message maven, has felt the brunt of criticism over what many view as the administration’s failure to clearly define and disseminate Mr. Obama’s agenda and accomplishments for the country.

“The Obama White House has lost the narrative in the way that the Obama campaign never did,” said James Morone, a political scientist at Brown University. “They essentially took the president’s great strength as a messenger and failed to use it smartly.”

Mr. Axelrod said he accepts some blame for what he called “communication failures,” though he acknowledges bafflement that the administration’s efforts to stimulate the economy in a crisis, overhaul health care and prosecute two wars have been so routinely framed by opponents as the handiwork of a big-government, soft-on-terrorism, politics-of-the-past ideologue.

“For me, the question is, why haven’t we broken through more than we have?” Mr. Axelrod said. “Why haven’t we broken through?”

That question has dogged Mr. Axelrod in recent months and has preoccupied Mr. Obama’s inner circle, fueling speculation that the vaunted “No Drama Obama” team might be fracturing. Not surprisingly, the White House has no patience with the notion.

“You guys want to fit people into boxes and categories that are just not accurate,” Mr. Emanuel said.

Mr. Axelrod would not discuss what counsel he offered to Mr. Obama, though he denies any “fissure with my buddy Rahm” and any charge that he is too infatuated with the president to recognize the political risks of his ambitious agenda.

“Believe me, if we were charting this administration as a political exercise, the first thing we would have done would not have been a massive recovery act, stabilizing the banks and helping to keep the auto companies from collapsing,” he said. “Those would not even be the first hundred things he would want to do.”

But Mr. Axelrod argued that the president, confronted with “breathtaking challenges,” did not have the luxury of moving more slowly or methodically.

In a lengthy interview in his office on Wednesday, Mr. Axelrod was often defiant, saying he did not give a “flying” expletive “about what the peanut gallery thinks” and did not live for the approval “of the political community.” He denounced the “rampant lack of responsibility” of people in Washington who refuse to solve problems, and cited the difficulty of trying to communicate through what he calls “the dirty filter” of a city suffused with the “every day is Election Day sort of mentality.”

When asked how he would assess his performance, Mr. Axelrod shrugged. “I’m not going to judge myself on that score,” he said. But then he shot back: “Have I succeeded in reversing a 30-year trend of skepticism and cynicism about government? I confess that I have not. Maybe next year.”

The criticism of the administration’s communication strategy — leveled by impatient Democrats, gleeful Republicans, bloggers and cable chatterers — clearly stings Mr. Axelrod, as well as the circle of family, friends and fans he has acquired over three decades in politics as a consultant and, before that, a reporter for The Chicago Tribune.

“Every time I hear that the White House is getting the message wrong, it breaks my heart,” said Mr. Axelrod’s sister, Joan, an educational therapist in Boston. “I know he agonizes.”

Ms. Axelrod says that while her brother is devoted to Mr. Obama, he is not a sycophant. She paused when asked whether he admired the president too much. “He is very, very loyal, sometimes to a fault,” she said.

Added Mr. Gibbs: “The list of people who have to deliver bad news to the president is very small, and David is first on that list. I’m probably second.”

Mr. Axelrod’s friends worry about the toll of his job — citing his diet (cold-cut-enriched), his weight (20 pounds heavier than at the start of the presidential campaign), sleep deprivation (five fitful hours a night), separation from family (most back home in Chicago) and the fact that at 55, he is considerably older than many of the wunderkind workaholics of the West Wing. He wakes at 6 in his rented condominium just blocks from the White House and typically returns around 11.

Unlike other presidential alter egos, Mr. Axelrod is not viewed as a surrogate “brain” (like Karl Rove), a suspicious outsider (like Dick Morris in the Clinton White House) or a co-president (James Baker in the first Bush White House). Sometimes portrayed as a bare-knuckled Chicago operative, he is also a bantering walrus of a man in mustard-stained sleeves who describes himself as a “kibbitzer,” not a “policy guy.”

Sitting at his desk next door to the Oval Office last week, he was tearing into a five-inch corned beef sandwich on rye with a Flintstone-size turkey drumstick waiting on deck. “I am the poster child for the president’s obesity program,” he said.

A few minutes later, Mr. Obama walked in unannounced, scattering two aides like startled pigeons. “Hey,” Mr. Axelrod said by way of greeting (no “sir” or “Mr. President.”) Mr. Obama surveyed the spread on Mr. Axelrod’s desk with a slight smirk.

“What is this, King Arthur’s court?” he asked, then pulled Mr. Axelrod aside to talk about a health care speech he was about to deliver.

Mr. Axelrod is often at the president’s side; he sits in on policy and national security meetings and is routinely the last person he talks to before making a decision. He directs every aspect of the administration’s external presentation, overseeing polls, focus groups and speeches and appearing on the Sunday shows. Mr. Emanuel describes Mr. Axelrod as “an integrator of the three P’s” — press, policy and politics — “and how they make a whole.”

White House officials describe Mr. Axelrod’s focus as big themes rather than day-to-day sound bites. There has been no shortage of Democrats willing to second-guess his messaging approach.

“They made a big mistake right out of the box with the Inaugural Address,” said former Senator Bob Kerrey, adding that a president pledging bipartisanship should not have disparaged the previous administration in his speech, as many listeners believed Mr. Obama did.

Of course, they are continuing to make the same mistake of blaming Bush over and over and over again on a daily basis over a year later.

And that does go to the core of the Obama failure: the inability to match his rhetoric with reality, or even his rhetoric with his own rhetoric.

The man who pledged bipartisanship and a transcendent ability to reach across the divide and bring the country together has blamed and demonized the Bush administration and the Republican Party every single time he “reached.”

I have to say I feel sorry for the messengers who are being hounded for not being able to get the White House message out: it’s full of lies and deceit; how do you make all the Obama lies look good without telling a whole bunch of other lies?

The one word that most accurately frames this piece is, “Wah.” The people who most successfully demagogued mainstream media narratives when it came to George Bush and Republicans are the biggest bunch of thin-skinned whining crybabies I’ve ever seen. Someone else is ALWAYS to blame with these people.

And when they demonize Republicans for their criticisms when the Obama team has done nothing BUT demonize Bush and Republicans, it is beyond disgusting and even beyond despicable.

What couldn’t be more obvious about Obama’s inner circle – political rather than policy experts all – is that all they can do well is campaign. So they constantly campaign in campaign mode, and then cry the moment anybody suggests they’re doing anything because of “politics.” I mean, think about it: the same man who lambasts the press for their “every day is Election Day sort of mentality,” is the guy who is closer than anyone to Obama – and who spends all his time as the “integrator of the three P’s” — press, policy and politics — “and how they make a whole.”

I mean, how DARE you people accurately describe us as what we are, and consider policies from the same uber-political perspective that WE consider them. HOW DARE YOU!

The Obama inner circle lives in a bunker and embraces a “bunker-view mentality” to the world. In contradiction to their statements to the contrary, they are hyper-hyper sensitive to any skepticism at all. And their growing problem is that the nastiest skepticism of all isn’t coming from “the right” or from Fox News, but from their very own left and from media that should be in their pockets.

I don’t know how long it’s going to take before it happens, but this president and this inner White House circle are heading for a meltdown of epic proportions.

This article from a mainstream liberal does so many things. 1) It tells us the only thing that keeps Obama from already being the complete loser and failure Jimmy Carter was is Rahm Emanuel; 2) It tells us that Barack Obama has repeatedly ignored wise advice and paid attention to far-left liberal lunacy; and 3) It points out that the failure of health care isn’t Republican obstructionism, but Barry Hussein stupidity and his refusal to try to pass bills that Republicans could have supported.

I’m glad that even liberals are starting to recognize that this health care mess we’re in wasn’t the Republicans’ fault; it was Obama’s incompetence and hard-core liberal ideology.

It is the current fashion to blame President Obama’s disappointing first year on his chief of staff. “First, remove Rahm Emanuel,” writes Leslie Gelb in the Daily Beast, because he lacks “the management skills and discipline to run the White House.”

They join liberal interests who despised Emanuel long before he branded them “retarded.” Jane Hamsher of firedoglake.com, together with conservative activist Grover Norquist, demanded a Justice Department investigation into Emanuel, who is “far too compromised to serve as gatekeeper to the president.”

As Emanuel would say: What the [expletive deleted]?

Clearly, “Rahmbo” has no shortage of enemies in this town, and with Obama’s approval rating dipping below 50 percent, they have ammunition. But sacking Emanuel is the last thing the president should do.

Obama’s first year fell apart in large part because he didn’t follow his chief of staff’s advice on crucial matters. Arguably, Emanuel is the only person keeping Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter.

Obama chose the profane former Clinton adviser for a reason. Where the president is airy and idealistic, Rahm is earthy and calculating. One thinks big; the other, a former House Democratic Caucus chair, understands the congressional mind, in which small stuff counts for more than broad strokes.

Obama’s problem is that his other confidants — particularly Valerie Jarrett and Robert Gibbs, and, to a lesser extent, David Axelrod — are part of the Cult of Obama. In love with the president, they believe he is a transformational figure who needn’t dirty his hands in politics.

The president would have been better off heeding Emanuel’s counsel. For example, Emanuel bitterly opposed former White House counsel Greg Craig’s effort to close the Guantanamo Bay prison within a year, arguing that it wasn’t politically feasible. Obama overruled Emanuel, the deadline wasn’t met, and Republicans pounced on the president and the Democrats for trying to bring terrorists to U.S. prisons. Likewise, Emanuel fought fiercely against Attorney General Eric Holder’s plan to send Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York for a trial. Emanuel lost, and the result was another political fiasco.

Obama’s greatest mistake was failing to listen to Emanuel on health care. Early on, Emanuel argued for a smaller bill with popular items, such as expanding health coverage for children and young adults, that could win some Republican support. He opposed the public option as a needless distraction.

The president disregarded that strategy and sided with Capitol Hill liberals who hoped to ram a larger, less popular bill through Congress with Democratic votes only. The result was, as the world now knows, disastrous.

Had it gone Emanuel’s way, a politically popular health-care bill would have passed long ago, leaving plenty of time for other attractive priorities, such as efforts to make college more affordable. We would have seen a continuation of the momentum of the first half of 2009, when Obama followed Emanuel’s strategy and got 11 substantive bills on his desk before the August recess.

Instead, Congress has ground to a halt, on climate legislation, Wall Street reforms and virtually everything else. Emanuel, schooled by Bill Clinton, knew what the true believers didn’t: that bite-sized proposals add up to big things.

Contrast Emanuel’s wisdom with that of Jarrett, in charge of “intergovernmental affairs and public engagement” — two areas of conspicuous failure. Jarrett also brought in Desiree Rogers as White House social secretary; the Salahi embarrassment ensued. Then there’s Gibbs. It’s hard to make the case that you’re a post-partisan president when your on-camera spokesman is a hyper-partisan former campaign flack.

No wonder Emanuel has set up his own small press operation and outreach function to circumvent the dysfunctional ones that Jarrett and Gibbs run. Obama needs an old Washington hand to replace Jarrett and somebody with gravitas on the podium to step in for Gibbs.

The failure of the president’s message also reflects on his message maven, Axelrod, who is an adept strategist but blinded by Obama love. A good example was Obama’s unproductive China trip in November. Jarrett, Gibbs and Axelrod went along as courtiers; Emanuel remained at his desk in Washington, struggling to keep alive the big health-care bill that he didn’t want in the first place.

In hiring Emanuel, Obama avoided the mistakes of his Democratic predecessors, who first gave the chief of staff job to besotted loyalists. Now in trouble, Obama needs fewer acolytes and more action. Rahm should stay.

If Rahm Emanuel doesn’t have a giant man-crush on Barack Obama, maybe he should stay. Certainly, if the Milbrank article has any truth to it, Rahm Emanuel would be the only one at the White House who has either common sense or a freaking clue.

It’s actually quite funny. Democrats are increasingly at each others’ throats while all the while telling everyone (and I’m sure trying to reassure themselves) that everything is right as rain.

Whether Rahm Emanuel stays, or whether someone else goes, Barry Hussein is an utter failure, and a future utter disgrace. You can change the whole rest of the team and it won’t matter, because their franchise player is an incompetent loser.